2nd GEOSS Science and Technology Stakeholder Workshop GEOSS: Supporting Science for the Millennium Development Goals and Beyond Bonn, Germany, August 28—31, 2012

Questions for the Breakout Sessions

This blog discusses question that should be considered by the breakout sessions and addressed in the reports of these sessions. The Plenary Sessions P1 to P5 also should keept these questions in mind and refer to them as appropriate. These answers to these questions are relevant to the workshop output documents to be prepared by Plenary Session P6 to P9.

Contributions to the blog should be sent to info@geo-tasks.org. Contributions will be published unedited with the name of the author.

August 29, 2012: Jim Costopulos

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail dialog about Global Oceans and its relevance to ocean observations in support of sustainability research. See also Costopulos&Hickey: Global Oceans ....

Global Oceans Summary

Global Oceans is a US-based nonprofit organization that has established an optimized and managed approach to assembling oceanographic research platforms worldwide utilizing existing commercial resources such as Platform Supply Vessels and modular laboratories. This allows research vessels to be configured on-site at any global port and deployed anywhere, including in remote, open ocean, polar and other understudied regions. This model will create new, “open access” research capacity worldwide without the need for new capital infrastructure investment. Collaboration with the ocean science community will be international and interdisciplinary in scope, and can support capacity building with scientists in developing regions where state-of-the-art research vessels are scarce or nonexistent. In this way, Global Oceans will contribute to scientific observation of the marine environment in support of the Millennium Development Goals and the Grand Challenges for achieving global sustainability. More information is at www.global-oceans.org.

August 17, 2012: Anantha Duraiappah

The following is an excerpt from a longer draft document prepared by Anantha Duraiappah. See the full draft document as doc.

Key Questions

Q1. The terms MDGs, SDGs and Global Sustainability Goals have been used quite loosely and inter-changeable in the discourse on the post-2015 development framework. Are the three terms similar, different, complementary or conflicting? And what are the implications for setting goals, targets and indicators and the data needs?

Q2. The world is getting much more closely inter-connected and inter-dependent; therefore most of the goals and targets are inter-linked. How can we develop goals, targets and indicators in a manner that acknowledges these inter-connections—some complimentary and others with trade-offs? Do we and can we develop a conceptual framework that might capture these system dynamics and identify the data information required?

Q3. How do we develop global goals, targets and indicators that capture explicitly the need for collective action to achieve these targets and how do we resolve the dichotomy between the principle of universality and the principle of subsidiarity and its implications for data collection?

Q4. How will spatial and temporal scales across the natural and socio-economic sciences impact the development of a post-2015 development framework and how will this influence the data and information needs? For example, how will data on global environmental indicators as suggested by planetary boundaries reconcile with local, national and regional environmental indicators and subsequently the link with the socio-economic targets, and indicators?

Q5. What will be the main challenges in reconciling the data and information needs from the natural and socio-economic systems to ensure comparable concrete, quantifiable and time bound goals, targets and indicators?

Q6. What will be the main steps for the scientific community to take in order to contribute to the post-2015 development framework process initiated by the UN?

August 2, 2012: Hans-Peter Plag

IGOS-P provided an important function for science communities, i.e., the development and endorsement of theme reports in a well-defined process (detailed in the IGOS-P process paper), which resulted in authoritative reports describing the Earth observation needs of societally relevant scientific themes. GEO has not developed a similar process for the development and endorsement of assessment reports; most report generation in GEO context follows ad hoc rules. It would be good if the Workshop participants could address to what extent an IGOS-P-like process is needed and whether GEO could be the authoritative body to implement this process. In short, the question would be:

“Does the global sustainability research community need a theme-related process for authoritative assessment reports and, if so, should this process be a GEO theme process?”

August 1, 2012: Gary Geller

Here are some thoughts on the key discussion questions, morphed somewhat to tailor them to the Biodiversity breakout B2. These thoughts are worded in a black & white fashion to help stimulate discussion in B2, so they are not, necessarily, fully accurate.

1. Does the System of Systems Concept Work for Biodiversity (and GEO BON)? If yes, how should GEOSS/Biodiversity/GEO BON evolve post-2015? If no, what do we need to change?
   • Yes, but we need (...)
     • More and continued focus on interoperability of existing systems
     • More and continued engagement with national governments, including infusing ideas about national BONs
     • Improved observation gathering systems by filling in gaps, harmonizing collection protocols and outputs
     • All of these require coordination and facilitation, the source of which must be communities of practice. Developing these is critical—we must build a social infrastructure.
     • Revolution is impractical—no way to implement a sudden, large change (socially, financially, technically)
2. What implementation issues have to be addressed (eg, use of GCI, funding, interoperability, data sharing, ...)?
   • How will GCI get infused into tasks and components? How do we get them to use it? Should it be used? Is it the right approach for all tasks and components?
   • For Biodiversity, funding is by far the biggest issue; other issues are a consequence of lack of funding.
3. What Science and Technology issues have to be addressed, for example, the Aichi Targets, Grand Challenges, MDGs? How should these be approached?
   • Issues must be explicitly tied to specifically identified needs for specifically identified users. If a specific need for a specific user has not been identified, then what is the purpose of the addressing the issue? Every issue, need, response, requirement, product, service, element, piece of infrastructure, etc in GEO/GEOSS should pass this test—else, what is the justification?
   • Even MDGs and Grand Challenges must be connected to specific users; those users can then be engaged, which will greatly enhance the ability to address the issues and to provide useful information.
4. What should be the role of EBVs for Biodiversity? How do they relate to other SBAs and Tasks? How do we coordinate them with other SBAs and tasks?
   • EBVs should drive the biodiversity observation system (though additional observations will also be needed, eg, from other SBAs) and provide the basis for producing derived data products and services, including indicators.
   • Every SBA or task should produce a set of “Essential Variables”; this will provide the basis for coordination with other tasks.
5. What should GEO/GEOSS provide to Science & Technology institutions or programs?
   • GEOSS should provide observations, products, and services, plus a delivery mechanism to S&T users for all of these. A feedback mechanism so S&T can provide guidance on what is needed is also essential.
   • But as mentioned above it is critical to be specific about who “S&T” is: who, exactly, are the users and what, exactly, do they need?

July 26, 2012: Kathleen Fontaine

As for the key questions, here are my thoughts on those

1. Evolution or Revolution: Does the System of Systems Concept Work?
   • If yes, how should the GEOSS evolve post-2015?
   • If no, then what is the revolution in Earth observations that has to be implemented post-2015?

   ____If you ask this question, be prepared present a definition of the System of Systems concept as it is being applied to GEOSS. It's not clear to me that you'll be able to elicit a yes/no answer unless a working definition is presented. In a way, Google can also be defined as a System of Systems, and that concept can be said to work inasmuch as Google is generally believed to be a successful technology.

2. What issues have to be addressed?
   • The current Societal Benefit Areas?
   • New SBAs?
   • Grand Societal Challenges?
   • Global Initiatives?

   _____As we are teeing up issues for consideration by the Post-2015 WG, which (I would hope) is looking far into the future, it would be worth asking this question in terms of time frames, as was done originally with the 2-, 6-, and 10-year targets for GEOSS Implementation. We may not want to use 2, 6, and 10 years, but perhaps 5, 10, and 20. Clearly, societal benefit challenges will not ever be fully resolved, but can be addressed in phases, and this provides a way for us to discuss such issues in a phased way.

3. Where and how does Science and Technology fit into GEO, now and post-2015?
   • What is it that GEOSS provides or should provide to Science & Technology?
   • What does or can Science & Technology bring into GEOSS
   • What is or should be the role of Science & Technology institutions/programmes in GEO?
   • Where does Science and Technology fit into GEO post-2015?

   _____Here I have two comments. One is that GEO is the body; GEOSS is the deliverable. The body itself is made of Members and POs, who all use S&T to some extent. To me, the question of where and how S&T fit in GEO is not a meaningful one. The role of S&T in the achievement and operation of the deliverable itself, however, is very much a meaningful question.

   Second comment - there was a diagram from many moons ago, that is in the implementation plan, that shows the flow of data to applications to societal benefit and back. This has always clearly implied (at least to me) that there is a role for S&T into that flow chart at any place where it's applicable. What is really trying to be asked here?

July 13, 2012: Alan Edwards, Helmut Staudenrausch

In the period 2005-2015, the activities of GEO are governed by the GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan and the Strategic Targets, and are detailed in the GEO Work Plan. When considering GEO post-2015, it is important to assess the relevance of these fundamental guidance documents of GEO in the post-2015 period. The output from this session will provide valuable input for the post-2015 GEO discussions.

The Workshop will provide valuable input to this session to stimulate the discussions on GEO post-2015. To provide a framework for these discussions, the participants are also asked to consider the following key questions:

1. Evolution or Revolution: Does the System of Systems Concept Work?
   • If yes, how should the GEOSS evolve post-2015?
   • If no, then what is the revolution in Earth observations that has to be implemented post-2015?
2. What issues have to be addressed?
   • The current Societal Benefit Areas?
   • New SBAs?
   • Grand Societal Challenges?
   • Global Initiatives?
3. Where and how does Science and Technology fit into GEO, now and post-2015?
   • What is it that GEOSS provides or should provide to Science & Technology?
   • What does or can Science & Technology bring into GEOSS
   • What is or should be the role of Science & Technology institutions/programmes in GEO?
   • Where does Science and Technology fit into GEO post-2015?

Editorial comment: See the description of P9 for more details.